When someone supports abortion on the basis that “nobody knows when life begins,” my immediate reaction is to immediately correct their misinformation with the facts of biology. Doing so, however, does not always end up with them becoming pro-life. People will often move the goalpost, offering another justification for abortion.

To prevent this, you could ask: “Does this mean that if we knew when life began – and we found that it began at conception – that you join me in opposing abortions?” If they say yes, then they commit themselves to becoming pro-life once you have provided them with the biological evidence. Of course, they could always say no, in which case you might ask them, “If it’s not our ignorance of when life begins that justifies abortion, then what does?” While this may prevent you from being able to provide them with the biological evidence to demonstrate their error, at least it will refocus the conversation to the reason(s) they think justifies abortion – which allows you to be more pointed in your apologetic, and provides a better chance of them changing their mind.

Share:

Like this:

Liberals love to label those who have ethical objections to cloning, doubts about man-made global warming, and the like as “science deniers” and “climate change deniers.” Matt Walsh suggests that we start calling those who deny that one’s biological sex determines their actual gender as “biology deniers.” And in this case, the term is an accurate description rather than a derogatory, non-descriptive insult. Those who want to normalize transgender thoughts are truly denying biology. They affirm that someone who is biologically male is actually female.

Transgender advocates aren’t the only biology deniers. So are abortion advocates. They deny the biological fact that the unborn are human beings from the moment of conception.

So the next time you meet someone who is arguing for abortion or transgenderism, ask they why they are a biology denier.

Share:

Like this:

Those who are opposed to state and federal defunding of Planned Parenthood argue that these dollars are not paying for abortions, but contraception and other female-related health services. So why would pro-lifers want to defund this? Do we just hate women? Do we want to ensure that more women are “punished” for premarital sex by getting pregnant? Of course not. What we understand is that the grants Planned Parenthood receives for their non-abortion services indirectly funds their abortion business. To see why, imagine for a moment that the government provided grants to churches to pay for all of their office supplies, marriage counselors, city permits, and building repairs. Would the pro-Planned Parenthood-funding crowd agree with the government that this is not supporting religion? Of course not! They realize that the money a church saves by not having to pay for those government-funded items will be redirected to evangelistic efforts. So while the government’s funds would not be directly funding Christian evangelism, they are indirectly funding it. The same is true of federal funding of Planned Parenthood. While these funds are not directly responsible for aborting babies, they are indirectly responsible because Planned Parenthood can use all of the money the government saved them and direct it to their abortion business. And when 41% of their revenue comes from government, that’s a lot of money to redirect to their abortion business.

Share:

Like this:

Some good news! The Guttmacher Institute just released their abortion data from 2013-4. The number of abortions fell below one million for the first time in 2013 (958,700), and dropped again in 2014 (926,200). The last time they were this low was in 1975, just a couple of years after Roe.

The abortion rate has also continued to decline from 29 p/1000 women (aged 15-44) in 1980, to 14.6 p/1000 women in 2014. This is the lowest it has been since 1973.

While there are many factors that contribute to this decline (better contraception practices, pro-life legislation making it more difficult to obtain an abortion), one of them is most certainly the pro-life message of equal protection for all human beings. We have a lot more work to do to make abortion a matter for the history books, but I’ll rejoice over each step along the way.

Share:

Like this:

I applaud Nick Cannon for having the guts to state the obvious: Planned Parenthood is responsible for “real genocide” in the black community, and is a form of “modern eugenics.” Indeed, more black Americans die from abortion than from anything else. The abortion rate for black women is three times higher than that of white women. Black lives truly matter, and that includes in the womb. And if the Black Lives Matter movement truly believed black lives matter, they would become pro-life because nothing has done more to desecrate the black population than abortion.

Like this:

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate? How is that different from a German voting for Hitler? Let me explain.

When it comes to voting, our primary concern as Christians should be that we elect a candidate to government office who will fulfill God’s purpose for government. And what is that purpose? Justice: rewarding good and punishing evil (Rom 13:1-4). While it’s true that no government, political party, or political candidate fulfills this purpose perfectly, it’s also true that they don’t fail at it equally. Some political parties and candidates do more to promote justice and punish evil than others. Our moral obligation is to cast our vote for the party/candidate we have reason to believe will bring about the greatest amount of good possible.

Like this:

Government’s primary purpose is to protect our natural rights. The right to life is the most important right because all other rights depend on it. Any candidate/party who uses their political power to allow some mothers to legally murder their own children in utero is not fit for public office and should never receive our vote. As a form of murder, abortion is the greatest injustice possible, and to vote for a candidate/party who has told you in advance that they will use their political power to ensure that this injustice continues and expands, is morally unconscionable.